I've barely paid attention the last few weeks, but blaming either side more than the other is pointless now. Neither side is really pushing for a season.

For anyone who questions the "huff and puffy" stuff where the owners take the deal off the table...

They take their current deal off the table b/c they are making concessions based on principal expectations. If they say "we are going to give up x and y to get a and b" and the PA says "we'll take x and y but we want b and concessions on a," the owners are going to take x and y off the table to see how important a and b are.

The owners have basically shown that the make whole money really isn't a big deal for them at this point. And since it's a huge issue for the players, they are going to cave on it b/c it hurts to give up but not that bad. They are seeing how important it is for the players to get that money by taking the offer off they table. They know the players want it and are betting that they give up the other things in order to get it. After all, the players biggest whining point has been on honoring all the money they've signed for. Now the owners are giving it to them.

MRandall25 wrote:It is close. The owners are trying to break the Union.

They've done this 3 times since negotiations began. It's a bluff and the players aren't calling it (nor should they).

Break the union not really, stick it to Don Fehr most definitely. The more militant union members who remember the last lockout wanted revenge and brought in the hired gun Fehr to handle things. Too bad the owners locked the players out because they took away Fehr's first option which would have been to start the season under the old CBA, and then called a strike just before the playoffs when no progress on a new agreement was made (see baseball 1994 for reference). Fehr mised his option 2, by not asking for union decertification before the season started. This is not an option now, because the owners will cancel the season now if he tries that move, and its unlikely he can get a majority of his membership to vote for it anyhow. Fehr also miscalculated that public pressure would cause the owners to cave. This isn't the MLB, and the majority of Americans don't know or care that the NHL isn't playing games.

The tragic part of all of this is had Paul Kelly stayed as head of the NHLPA we would have never gone down this path. They would have settled for around 50/50, which is what Fehr will deliver when the dust clears, and no players would have lost a paycheck. The union brethren can thank those individuals who pushed Kelly out as the reason that all of this happened.

No. Without question, they are trying to break the Union.

If they played this season under the old CBA, there would have been no strike before the playoffs, because that would have been in violation of the CBA.

I doubt we would be at this same place if somebody else was running the NHLPA. Fehr was brought in by the hardliners that wanted retribution for the last CBA. Fehr came in with a reputation and the NHL owners are not going to cave like their counterparts in the MLB.

Sarcastic wrote:But it is the stars that get long contracts. You're not going to see Dupuis with one over 5 years. So I would think it's the stars who get the 10 year/$100 million deals that are fighting to extent contract length. Not the mid and low level players. My guess is that the higher paid players convinced a number of the lower paid guys that their (stars') contracts may affect theirs.

I don't think it's the low level guys who are holding things in place. It's the big players.

The idea is that the money remains pretty well the same in those cap circumvention deals, so by extending the length they are able to lower the cap hit. A lot of those contracts go to the extremes, but they do open up a little more room for the little guys.

I'll use Kovalchuk's contract as an example, even it it's structured a bit differently. Kovalchuk has 3 years at a $1-million salary in his current 15-year contract. The assumption being made is that without those 3 years, the $3-million would simply be spread into other years. So instead of the contract being $100-million over 15 years ($6.67-million AAV) he'd be earning $100-million over 12 years ($8.33-million AAV). That extra $1.66-million per year in cap space can play a pretty big role in signing/upgrading players.

Not sure if it would open up much if owners got the 5% variance they want no matter the contract length. I think that what you're talking about may be more due in part to a lot of those contracts dipping toward the end, effectively lowering the cap hit. Some of it is surely as a courtesy of getting a long contract. I'm just not sure that's enough to get same result.

Kovalchuk is actually a good example. His contract dips in the end. That's why the lower cap hit and more money for depth players.

The NHL had agreed to let the players work their way down to 50% revenue over the next few years and stay at 50%.

The NHL had agreed to $300M worth of "make whole" payments to ease the transition.

The NHL had agreed to keep the existing UFA and RFA eligibility rules.

The NHL agreed to extend the 5 year contract maximum to 7 years for home teams singing UFAs.

The NHL agreed to the amount of revenue sharing the players wanted.

All they were asking for, was not more than 5% change in value from year to year on a contract (hardly a big concession by players and important for avoiding back-diving, cap-circumventing contracts), and not more than 5 year deals for UFAs going to new teams, and the new definition of HRR (which was agreed to weeks ago). That's it basically.

And Fehr turned his players against the process because at that moment, with those non-hard-liner owners in the room... he sensed he could GET IT ALL.

I feel like with the 5% variance, a 5 year contract limit may not be necessary. Perhaps there should be some kind of upper limit to avoid silly contracts like Dipietro, but 5 may not be necessary. I DO like the idea of allowing an extra year or two if players re-sign with their current team, however.

In an Email to the The Associated Press on Friday night, Daly wrote "I have no reason, nor any intention, of reaching out to the union right now. I have no new ideas. Maybe they do. We are happy to listen."

And Fehr again:

"It's up to them," Fehr said, following a speech to the Canadian Auto Workers union. "They're the ones who called a halt to the process."

Yeah, was kinda negative after the last round of talks. I'm just trying to look at it objectively and see where the deals stand. Looking at it that way puts it into better perspective, at least on my end.

The owners appear ready to throw away the entire year, if that ensures them of one of their main goals: crushing the union for good.The players appear ready to throw away the entire year, if that ensures them of one of their main goals: continuing to live with their head in the sand.

columbia wrote:The owners appear ready to throw away the entire year, if that ensures them of one of their main goals: crushing the union for good.The players appear ready to throw away the entire year, if that ensures them of one of their main goals: continuing to live with their head in the sand.

So, yes, I'd say there is a reasonable chance.

Those were my original thoughts, I should have stuck with those. (and I don't know which smiley to end that with - or or - maybe all of the above? )

I tried to start a new season on my xbox but the player union hired Hitler as their lead negotiator, i can't understand a word he is saying. But i think we are closer to a deal than we thought.

Fehr will never let them get to a deal, he doesn't care that the players sit for a year. He doesn't realize the deal he will get will never be as nice as the players had on the table by the owners.

I really am worried the owners havn't thought this 5 year contract deal thing to the full extent. ALot of posters have thought of negative impications, most which i agree with. The 5% varience seems like it would take care ofany other issues.